Calendar Date: March 27, 2018Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.__________Bartlett LLP, White Plains (Michael J. Catallo of counsel),for petitioner.Barbara D. Underwood, Acting Attorney General, Albany(William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.__________Mulvey, J.Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to thisCourt by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) toreview a determination of respondent denying petitioner’sapplication for disability retirement benefits.Petitioner, a correction officer, applied for disabilityretirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law§ 507-a, contending that she was disabled due to injuriessustained to her left knee and back in December 2013 when sheslipped and fell while descending a flight of stairs at atraining facility. The application was denied upon the groundsthat petitioner did not have 10 years of total service creditand, further, that the incident did not constitute an accidentwithin the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law.Following the requested rehearing and redetermination, whereinthe New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System raisedthe issue of whether petitioner was in service at the time of theincident, the Hearing Officer denied petitioner’s application.Insofar as is relevant here, the Hearing Officer found thatpetitioner failed to establish that she had the requisite 10years of service credit and that petitioner was on a break from atraining seminar when she was injured and, therefore, was engagedin a personal activity unrelated to the performance of her workduties at the time of her fall.1 Respondent adopted the HearingOfficer’s findings and conclusions, prompting petitioner tocommence this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’sdetermination.We confirm. A member of the Retirement System may applyfor disability retirement benefits if, among other things, he orshe has “at least [10] years of total service credit” (Retirementand Social Security Law § 507-a [b] [1]). Respondent “is chargedwith the responsibility of determining service credits forretirement purposes and his determination will be upheld ifrational and supported by substantial evidence” (Matter ofCaetano v DiNapoli, 140 AD3d 1579, 1580 [2016] [internalquotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 28 NY3d 906[2016]; see Matter of Ratzker v Office of the N.Y. StateComptroller [N.Y. State & Local Retirement Sys.], 106 AD3d 1321,1322 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 854 [2013]).Here, a representative from the Retirement System testifiedthat petitioner had 8.85 years of service credit — a calculationbased upon petitioner working for the state for brief periods oftime in 1994 and 2000 before returning to state service fromFebruary 2006 to September 2014. Although petitioner testifiedthat such calculation failed to take into account service thatshe allegedly performed for the state at certain points prior to1994, her assertion in this regard is belied by her payrollrecords (which do not document state service prior to September1994) and her first application for membership in the RetirementSystem (which reflects an initial appointment date of September20, 1994), as well as her September 2014 application fordisability retirement benefits, wherein she indicated that shehad been in state service for eight years. As the recordotherwise fails to support petitioner’s claim that she isentitled to additional service credit, respondent’s determinationin this regard will not be disturbed (see Matter of Caetano vDiNapoli, 140 AD3d at 1581).Without 10 years of service credit, petitioner was requiredto demonstrate “that an accidental injury was sustained while inthe performance of . . . her duties” (Matter of Rajcoomar v NewYork State Comptroller, 159 AD3d 1323, 1323-1324 [2018] [internalquotation marks and citation omitted]; see Retirement and SocialSecurity Law § 507-a [b] [3]). To that end, we have routinely“upheld the denial of benefits where an employee is injured whileon a break or otherwise engaged in a personal activity” (Matterof Gonzalez v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys.,79 AD3d 1562, 1563 [2010]; accord Matter of Heidelmark v New YorkState & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 159 AD3d 1326, 1326[2018]; see Matter of Dreher v DiNapoli, 121 AD3d 1145, 1146[2014]; Matter of Welch v Hevesi, 32 AD3d 564, 564 [2006]).Petitioner, who was attending an employer-sponsored trainingexercise, testified unequivocally that her fall occurred during ascheduled break as she was leaving the facility to visit a nearbyrelative. Substantial evidence thus supports respondent’sdetermination that petitioner was not in service at the time shewas injured (see Matter of Gonzalez v New York State & LocalEmployees’ Retirement Sys., 79 AD3d at 1563; Matter of Curtin vHevesi, 57 AD3d 1178, 1178-1179 [2008]; Matter of Waldron vMcCall, 302 AD2d 742, 743 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 503 [2003];Matter of Nappi v Regan, 186 AD2d 855, 855 [1992], lv denied 81NY2d 703 [1993]). In light of this disposition, petitioner’sremaining contention is academic.Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, withoutcosts, and petition dismissed.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
